Literature DB >> 11940619

Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry.

Dennis K Collis1, Craig G Mohler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aseptic loosening of the cemented stem is the most common cause of revision of total hip arthroplasties. The loosening is often associated with substantial lysis of the surrounding bone. The surface finish of femoral components is suspected as a contributing factor to this bone lysis. The purpose of this study was to compare the results associated with a rough surface and those associated with a polished surface in a consecutive series of cemented stems with essentially the same geometry.
METHODS: The study included 244 consecutive total hip arthroplasties with a cemented femoral component performed by one surgeon. There was no difference in patient selection criteria or surgical techniques between the group treated with a polished stem and that treated with a grit-blasted stem. All arthroplasties were hybrid, with an uncemented acetabular component. Generally, patients were over the age of sixty years (mean age, 70.6 years). The stems inserted in the initial 122 hips had a grit-blasted surface with a roughness of 2.1 microm. The stem surface in the second 122 hips was polished (roughness, 0.1 microm). The results of clinical and radiographic assessments performed immediately after surgery were compared with those performed at the most recent visit. The average duration of clinical follow-up for the patients treated with the grit-blasted and polished stems was 5.98 years and 5.32 years, respectively.
RESULTS: Four hips treated with the grit-blasted stem had aseptic loosening with substantial surrounding lysis and required revision. An additional two hips in this group had radiographic evidence of substantial lysis and were judged to have an impending need for revision. In contrast, no hip treated with the polished stem required revision, and only one had minimal lysis. This difference regarding failures and impending failures was significant (p = 0.05). The clinical results were comparable, with an Iowa hip rating of 98 points at the time of follow-up in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference between grit-blasted and polished stems with respect to the prevalence of revisions and impending revisions, all of which were identified in a relatively short follow-up period. The results in this series favor the use of a polished stem when cement is employed for fixation of the femoral component.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11940619     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  15 in total

1.  Iowa and Eugene, Oregon, orthopaedics.

Authors:  Joseph A Buckwalter
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2003

2.  The relationship between stem subsidence and improvement in the radiolucency in polished tapered stems.

Authors:  Ayumi Kaneuji; Tanzo Sugimori; Toru Ichiseki; Kiyokazu Fukui; Kengo Yamada; Tadami Matsumoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-14       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Stem-cement porosity may explain early loosening of cemented femoral hip components: experimental-computational in vitro study.

Authors:  Kenneth A Mann; Leatha A Damron; Mark A Miller; Amos Race; Michael T Clarke; Richard J Cleary
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Minimum 10-year survival of Kerboull cemented stems according to surface finish.

Authors:  Moussa Hamadouche; François Baqué; Nicolas Lefevre; Marcel Kerboull
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The twenty-year survivorship of two CDH stems with different design features.

Authors:  George Digas; George Georgiades; Kalliopi Lampropoulou-Adamidou; George Hartofilakidis
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-10-18

6.  High failure rate of a modern, proximally roughened, cemented stem for total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  A Grose; A González Della Valle; P Bullough; S Lyman; I Tomek; P Pellicci
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-04-29       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?

Authors:  Kristoff Corten; Steven J MacDonald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  In vitro comparison of the effects of rough and polished stem surface finish on pressure generation in cemented hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gavin E Bartlett; David J Beard; David W Murray; Harinderjit S Gill
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Stem subsidence of polished and rough double-taper stems: in vitro mechanical effects on the cement-bone interface.

Authors:  Ayumi Kaneuji; Kengo Yamada; Kenichi Hirosaki; Masahiro Takano; Tadami Matsumoto
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  In vitro influence of stem surface finish and mantle conformity on pressure generation in cemented hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gavin E Bartlett; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray; David J Beard
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.